With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

A Nuke-Free Germany May Be Forced Into Dirty Embrace With Coal

The German government’s commitment to close its nuclear plants is still strong, giving Chancellor Angela Merkel the courage she needs to forge ahead. But will such an energy strategy pay off or will it backfire?

Angela Merkel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Germany’s decision to halt its use of nuclear power within a decade is all in the context of the Japanese nuclear accident that occurred in March 2011. While Merkel is insisting that renewable energy can make up for nuclear power’s current composition, others are expressing fears that coal-fired electricity will fill much of the void. The chancellor is saying that the transition to a nuclear-free future will be well-considered, and definite.

“We have achieved a lot but we are far from being where we should stand,” says Merkel, who spoke before the German Employers Association this week, as referenced by the Associated Press. If the plan is done right, “Germany will be a model for many countries around the world in how one can achieve sustainable energy supply.”

That won’t be easy and the current passion to go nuke-free may ultimately subside. Consider that in March 2011, Germany received 25 percent of its electricity from 17 nuclear reactors. Following the Fukushima accident, the country shut down 8 of those plants, says the World Nuclear Association, which adds that the German public is evenly divided over the question.

Coal now supplies 41 percent of Germany’s electric generation, says the World Coal Association. The country has consumed about 5 percent more coal since the Japanese nuclear crisis.

Just how will Germany catapult green energy into the lead? Households there will pay a surcharge amounting to $324 per year on top of their current bill, reports the AP. German businesses, however, will be exempt so as not to affect their competitive positions.

The added fees will be used to fund the development of renewable technologies. At present, green energy there accounts for a quarter of the electricity burned but the aim is to see it reach 40 percent when the country’s nuclear plants are totally phased in 2022. Germany hopes that green energy will equate to 80 percent of the generation portfolio by 2050.

The European nations are now equally divided about what role nuclear energy should play in their economies. Great Britain and Russia are among those that have said their nuclear programs will advance. France’s new government has said that it will pull back, along with those of Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.

In any event, all of those European countries have ratcheted up their regulatory safeguards. At the same time, some are exploring the use of advanced nuclear generation, or fourth generation reactors that are capable of automatically shutting down before a reactor’s core could meltdown and radiation would escape.

Interestingly, about two years ago, Chancellor Merkel had agreed to extend the life of the nuclear sector there for 12 years. But that idea caused her party to lose national representation. She then changed gears after Fukushima, vowing to end the use of nuclear energy by 2022.

And while green energy will pick up some slack, Germany will still need to import power from Poland, the Czech Republic and France. It will also have to build more coal and natural gas plants. Despite the obstacles, Germany’s ruling party says that it will uphold its obligation under global climate change treaties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020.

Might Germans have a change of heart? Homegrown utilities E.ON and RWE have nuclear systems that have long operated safely and efficiently and that have been counted on to deliver energy to the public there. Removing those plants and relying instead on wind, solar and energy efficiency is unproven.

Some experts are therefore saying that the German people may have to learn a hard lesson. “While Germany might temporarily abandon nuclear facilities, its people will never abandon electricity generated in nuclear reactors — at least as long as German voters prefer a higher to a lower standard of living,” writes Fred Banks, an energy economist in Sweden, in a column he authored for EnergyBiz Insider.

Germany’s plan to phase-out its nuclear generation is a blow to the movement. But it’s unlikely to sway those Asian nations such as China and India that have a number of such plants under construction and on the drawing board. And here in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted Southern Company and Scana Corp. permission to build two reactors each.

Times evolve and so do political environments. It’s understandable that some governments are now reluctant to pursue nuclear energy, but that could easily change: Nations are developing effective regulations and cultivating advanced nuclear generation, all of which is coming atop an escalating demand for cleaner and more abundant energy.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

———–” Some experts are therefore saying that the German people may have to learn a hard lesson. “While Germany might temporarily abandon nuclear facilities, its people will never abandon electricity generated in nuclear reactors — at least as long as German voters prefer a higher to a lower standard of living,” writes Fred Banks, an energy economist in Sweden, in a column he authored for EnergyBiz Insider.”————-

Ferdinand Banks is an arrogant, self aggrandizing, bombastic, idiot—–who is completely and totally in love with himself and his own opinions.

He’s never impressed me with any expetise in anything—-but then, I’m from Missouri, you have to show me.

There are completely different nuclear power technologies. We have been using only light water reactors (LWR, solid fueled, water cooled) for political reasons, not technological reasons.

Molten salt reactors, such as LFTR (molten fueled, salt cooled) can’t have loss of coolant accidents (not nearly enough heat to boil the coolant). No steam/hydrogen explosions are possible, since there is no water and no high pressure in a LFTR. “Nuclear meltdown” is not a concern in a reactor designed to use molten fuel.

LFTRs consume 99+% of the fuel (no long-term nuclear waste), since the fuel is molten and circulates through the reactor. LFTRs fuel can be uranium or plutonium from LWR, eliminating existing long-term nuclear waste, or plentiful thorium.

Molten salt reactors were demonstrated in the 1960s. Modern development work is being done in USA, France, Japan, Czech Republic, Canada, Australia; the Chinese Academy of Sciences will have LFTRs operating by 2020. The cost of developing LFTRs and building factories to manufacture them will be less than the cost of a single LWR in the USA. The total cost of manufacturing and operating LFTRs will produce electricity costing less than coal.

Germany does Not have to burn coal if it closes its light water reactors.

See http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/ for clear explanations how LFTRs work and what it will take to develop them, and links to scientific research already done.